Profile of karolllus

Don't forget that Cons also have bullet-magnet initial recived accuracy as well as require more investments to provide utility functions.

Believe me my friend, someone has probably already mentioned that fact somewhere along the line but how do you persuade someone who has 4k games with okw and playes nothing else that cons need a buff or price adjustment? From his skewed point of view this presents a risk that the game will not only become harder but also less fun. What if soviet infantry can actually hurt you? What then? So no ammount of data or argument will make them change their mind. Sad thing is there is no requirement of game experience or rank to talk in blaance forum. Otherwise trolls like insanehoshi would be banned.

Hey thats actually a good idea. Lets implement a rank or play ammount needed to talk in balance forum. You would have to get a clearence from the forum mods or something after you've shown your playercard. Top 100 with all factions would be best but I think top 200 or 300 with all factions in a specific gamemode would be sufficient enough for me. That would exlude onetrick ponies and oneside fanboys.

If you cap a point the sturmtiger knows you are there. However you don't know the sturmtiger is there.

Axis have plenty of abilities to scout 2.

A buff?! You crazy?

Allies light vehicles don't come fast ^^

The allied player has to adjust to them, how? Being forced to callin guards or a small at gun?

"When 9/10 games the axis player is adjusting to the allied strategy"
Dude ^^ , 3-4 volk, one kubel, luchs, raketen, mg, command panther. I'm sorry but okw never needs to adjust to the allied strategy

I admire your zeal for trying to talk some sense into those guys but believe me no one here is intrested in balancing the game. Axis have tons of 1v1 unit advantages, require less side techs, have more blob friendly units, less micro heavy units (due to tankiness), superior quality units for the same price, tiers allow for more diversity and versatility, have better unit compositions, less rely on a specific doctrine.

But people here love to argue and they will always find an argument that for this or that reason things should stay the same. If you're an axis only player (like intelligence209 here) then ofcourse nothing should ever change because otherwise these brainless friendly factions might stop being so retard friendly. Btw in another topic Im trying to convince people about the obvious fact that conscripts need rebalancing or price adjustment. But I still encounter trolls that try to defend the status quo even saying that soviets dont need main infantry to be balanced. Basically I regret ever buying this game.

This. Very trze,

yeah staying at long range... rifles with lmg maybe but remember cons do not have any long range weapon upgrade

I was striving more towards cost effeciency balanced. Basically lets make the cost of a unit reflect its effectivness on the field. If volks were the benchmark for cons from my math if volks cost 250 mp cons should cost around 200 mp with reinforcement cost scaling from 25 to 12 mp at vet3. That would balance the game without changing anything else in it. And the cost I proposed doesnt even take into account the fact that you have to pay for 2 more upgrades for cons. This just balances raw fighting potential of a vanilla and vetted unit.

You do realize I was agreeing with you, right?

This is, like, basically what I was saying.

COH2.org Balance Forums.

Well the way you framed it wasnt clear enough. Next time write something like "I agree" or "yes". Simpler that way with fewer words.

Yeah but nevertheless trying to balance the game holistically where each faction ganes advantages during each stage of the game doesnt really work imo. Earlier stages of the game are always more important than later stages because advantages bleed from one stage to the next. Having advantage during early game gives you an upper hand during mid game and so on. Early game advantages snowball the game. Thats why its so important to have balanced cost effeciency especially during early stages of the game.

Simple solution might be adjusting unit building cost in line with its vanilla combat capabilities (by vanilla I mean no vet without upgrades, volks vanilla should take into account incediary nades and pfausts since they dont require upgrades).

Reinforcement cost would take into account units progressive strength taking into account upgraded weapon, max vet, utility abilities etc. TBH reinforcement cost should be scaling with units vet + weapon upgrades. So for each level vetted unit should be more expensive to reinforce.

This way both early and later stages of the game get balanced.

There is another missed element of the puzzle. A silent advantage everyone didint notice or failed to acknowledge that ultimately leads to some factions losing early game. I mean starting resources + the mp cost of the free unit, unit cost effeciency and side techs. Overall early game advantages and how they snowball into latter stages of the game. It looks like this:

faction - starting resources - free unit cost - in sum
OKW - 340 + 300 = 640
UKF - 340 + 280 = 620
USF - 400 + 200 = 600
OST - 420 + 200 = 620 - 80 barracks = 540
SOV - 390 + 170 = 560 - 160 barracks = 400

Also relatively allied mgs are weaker early game compared to axis because okw has sturmpios that can rape you in the house and mg42 is stronger than any other mg in the game. Also brit IS costing 280 can lose to pios 200 at close range. Even rifles can lose to pios close range. So ost early game with double pios + double mg isnt that bad when compared to soviet combat engineers + cons (stop comparing ost to soviets please, they are literally on a different level).

Both rear echelons and pios cost 200 but can you imagine RE actually winning against pios? This is how ost can still cap while you are forced to retreat. On top of which pios get flamer upgrade later on, can plant mines, build bunkers etc. Basically 10x more cost effective when it actually counts. RE can use later on man vehicles and carry weapons but any weapon they carry deals significantly less damage when compared to main infantry so its always better to equip your rifles first. While on the other hand a flamer is always usefull no matter the case, there is always a building to clear and flamers are best at doing that.

When we compare okw to sov we get less resources as sov even if we dont build barracks. Combat engineers cost 170 mp while sturmpios 300, double combat engis cost 340, can you imagine a world where double sov engis win against sturmpios? Maybe in very favorable circumstances. Combat engis cant win vs volks while sturmpios rape cons anytime, anywhere. If we decide to go penals our starting resources effectively schrink to 400.

This is possibly the main reason why some factions seem stronger especially in 2v2s where you have to contest the same resource points with the very first units. After the first wave of units okw will have favorable position due to effective resource advantage. Now advantageous okw positions force sov player to put in even more resources to regain that position. In that case soviets will be put in mp drain situation on top of already having less resources.

Even if we went con spam early and somehow defended against early okw push cons will become an even bigger mp drain due to lack of upgrades, no free at or nades, no monster scaling. You can always pay 250 mp and 40 fuel + pick a specific commander early to elevate cons cost effeciency to volks level but that limits your early game resources even more allowing okw to field another unit or tech up instead. Also this leaves you open to getting your commander countered because you chose to pick him early making it even easier for okw to stay ahead. Even if you gain an early lead there is literally no possible way to get ahead of okw if the okw player has at least half a brain.

IMO best way of balancing the game would be first to adjust costs and side techs. First, redistribute side techs to all factions equally and re-adjust teching costs. By side techs I mean an upgrade that is not a requirement to tech up which can increase your units cost effeciency. Second, adjust cost effeciency of units. Especially T0 and T1 units. So if a unit like cons performs like shit then it should cost shit. I apply simple logic to early game stage, two units costing 240 should be able to easily fend off a 300 mp unit (cons vs sturmpios). A unit costing 240 should be as cost effective as 250 mp unit. The same rule applies to mg42 vs maxim cost effeciency. How are those two mgs valued at 260 each is beyond my comprehension. When maxim has worse sight range, range, damage, suppresion, armor penetration and arc of fire. Literally worse unit in every aspect, less cost effecient but costing the same as mg42 260 mp becuse its called a machine gun, while at the same time mg34 costs 230 mp while still performing better than maxim. I mean whoever is balancing the cost of units (F*** YOU).

Game should be balanced stage by stage. First early game, then mid game and late game lastly when previous two stages allow both sides a fair game.

Btw Im not sure but this information might need to be presented in a separate topic, what do you think?

I just want all factions to have a fair early game stage. Balanced, equal.